Mary Kenny: Atheists Must Be Miserable Gits
Far from relaxing and enjoying life, most atheists I have encountered are gloomy blighters with a depressing and nihilistic message that there is no purpose to life so where's the point of anything? They so often fall into the category defined by GK Chesterton: "Those that do not have the faith/Will not have the fun." You only have to attend one of their dreary humanist funerals to see that – I am never going to another of those, just to be made miserable.
Source: Guardian
Let's grant for the sake of argument that Mary Kenny has only ever known dreary and depressed atheists — it strikes me as unlikely, but let's assume it's true. Does this justify concluding that atheists are necessarily dreary or depressed and that religious faith is necessary to have fun? Of course not. There are any number of reasons why Kenny would only encounter depressed atheists — including the possibility that she and her bigotry are the cause of atheists around her getting depressed.
We should also make note of the fact that she offers no reasons to suppose that religious faith might be necessary in order to have fun. The most she offers is a quote from Chesterson, as if he were some sort of recognized authority on what humans need in order to not be depressed. If she had tried to seriously argue for such a connection, though, she'd have had to focus on some aspect of faith which makes having fun possible. This, however, would have required moving beyond vague generalizations and into religious specifics — and I think that's precisely the point.
You see, anything along the lines of "aspect X of faith helps reduce the likelihood of depression" would necessarily apply to just some religions and not others, which means that Mary Kenny would have been arguing not simply that atheists are predisposed to being dreary, but also any believers outside her preferred religions are also predisposed to being dreary. By sticking with vague generalizations, Kenny can appeal to religious believers generally who can all read her column and nod their heads in agreement, thinking only of what's particular to their own faith.
This is frequently a very important aspect of bigotry. Racists pretend that the line dividing their race from all others is more important than any divisions within their race. Homophobes pretend that the division between heterosexuals and homosexuals is more important than any divisions among heterosexuals. Misogynists pretend that the distinction between men and women is more important than any distinctions among men. When dividing people into "us" and "them," the bigot must pretend that the "us" is more-or-less completely unified, with no significant divisions or distinctions that might loom larger than the one keeping out the "them."
I'm not against people having different opinions; what I'm against is people in influential positions never having their opinions challenged. Far more nauseating than the open slogans on the London buses, subscribed to and paid for, are such phenomena as art installations by the likes of Gilbert and George consisting of the words "Ban religion", over and over again. They are then fawningly interviewed by a deferential Evan Davis on BBC Radio 4, when they should be subjected to the same kind of rigour as John Humphrys doing over the chancellor of the exchequer. Incidentally, if Gilbert and George had lived in a country which banned religion – Enver Hoxha's Albania – they would have been dispatched to perform menial agricultural work, if not to a gulag.
Do you think Mary Kenny really believes what she is saying here? I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible. It may, for example, be entirely possible that for years Mary Kenny has been complaining about how religious leaders occupying influential political and cultural positions should have their opinions challenged more often. It's possible that she has long complained about how religious, theistic, and in particular Christian authorities in Britain have been granted a special cultural status which has allowed them to voice their opinions on moral, political, and cultural issues with little or no direct response from other religious believers, never mind secular atheists.
If that's the case, then it's entirely consistent for her to now be concerned if secular atheists ever obtain a similar position where they can espouse their opinions without being challenged. Even in this best case scenario, though, it's hard to take her very seriously when she is treating as comparable the vast privileges long enjoyed by Christian authorities for centuries with this one example of atheists putting a sign on a public bus and a few cases of interviews which she doesn't regard as rigorous enough. Even so, I frankly don't believe this best-case scenario. I doubt that Mary Kenny has ever raised similar complaints about "fawning" interviews with leaders of the Anglican Church, for example. If that's indeed the case, then what we are seeing is not consistency, but rather a hypocritical double standard — which, again, is fairly typical of bigots of all stripes.
Comments
Pshaw. Everybody feels miserable every now and then.
I’ll even admit to occasionally being a git.
But I believe myself (and I think anyone who knows me personally would agree) to be compassionate, jovial, curious, trustworthy, and kind.
I do not believe “that there is no purpose to life so where’s the point of anything”. I simply refuse to accept the demands of an imaginary entity as a purpose to life.
For me, the purpose of life is clear, obvious, and simple: to live life.
I want to laugh and cry, to make some friends and lose some. To help others when I can, and accept help when needed. I want to root for my sports teams, and appreciate the emotions I feel when they lose, even if it IS just a game. I want to fish until sunset at Claytor Lake, then eat and drink too much by a bonfire with my good friends. I want to roll my eyes and sigh as my girlfriend tells me, yet again, about how that witch in shipping is out to destroy her life. I want to see the Pyramids of both Egypt and Meso America, and the great wall of China. I’d like to learn more. I want to touch the surface beside every wet paint sign I see. I want to see Rush every time they go on tour. I want to live life. Perhaps someday, I’ll even contribute to nature’s own meaning of life, and help the human species continue!
I like how she mentions, as an example of “dreary” humanist gatherings, funerals. Seriousness and sobriety at a memorial service, how unexpected.
I would venture a guess that the “Miserable Git” component in atheists is probably about the same as other non atheists. At least we don’t think we must “suffer” here, because our real life is after we die and go to heaven.
Everything will be wonderful in heaven, unless… we get sent to hell by our Lord and Savior for our sins here, anyway. Come to think of it, there may be a lot more Christians who are “Miserable Gits” because they must suffer and then may still wind up in hell.
Can someone please explain to me why some people think that if others don’t believe in their blatantly false religion that my life must therefore have no purpose?
To Marc: Because those people are sheep…
(5) Steve says:
To Marc: Because those people are sheep…
—————-
Funny to read such a comment on a post decrying anti-athiest bigotry. Some of the hypocracy that was mentioned in the blog, perhaps? Or does that only count if the deist is the bigot?
200 quatloos says Tim doesn’t know the difference between deism and theism.
To be fair, Tim, the label of “sheep” is self-applied by many theists. Members of the various Christian sects, mostly. How can it be bigotry to call them sheep, when they call themselves a “flock” in need of a shepherd?
I was an atheist when I was a depressed, pimply, angsty youth who thought it was rebellious to follow this new trend. Then I just got annoyed trying to justify my position by insulting everyone else’s religious affiliation; I realized I was only trying to convince myself!
This Mary woman generalizes a lot and incorrectly [first quote]. But I have realized the atheist’s trend to convince everyone else of their position and insult everyone’s religion while doing so. I’ve done it myself. And this blog is also proof. It’s not sharing atheist information or ideas for those who are uneducated, it’s telling people “HATE RELIGION BECAUSE OF THESE TABLOIDS AND RANDOM INTERNET LINKS!” But religion and God are two different things. A common Atheist mistake!
Uh, atheism isn’t a “new trend.”
So you were going about it all wrong.
So maybe you weren’t actually an atheist?
For some people, merely questioning their religion is perceived as insulting.
So, you don’t think that all the articles about the definition of atheism, how atheists can cope with religious families, and whatnot qualify as “sharing atheist information”? What, in your opinion, would qualify?
Feel free to support this accusation.
Actually, I have written frequently that theism and religion aren’t the same thing. Usually, it’s to explain to religious believers because they assume that atheism is a religion. So, in my experience, what you describe is common Christian mistake.
Another common Christian mistake is to spell atheism and/or atheism with a capital A, even though neither are proper nouns and therefore shouldn’t be capitalized in the middle of sentences.
Austin, please do not assume that just because I have knowledge about Christianity that I am a Christian. I am not. I am just educated on all religions and have also taken the time to experience them first hand by attending ceremonies and asking questions, not just going on what I read in books. (And a side note: I used atheism/atheist 4 times and only once capitalized it — it was an error, not intentional; I am surprised you didn’t notice this and just felt the need to criticize me based on one word out of the four!)
This all leads me to ask: Why do you criticize Christianity the very most? I never see you attack Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Taoism, and barely have you touched on Islam or Judaism, which share very similar beliefs and have the same forefathers as Christianity.
Have you had a terrible personal experience and now, because about.com gave you a blog, you feel insulting everything about Christianity is your way at getting back?
My support to my “accusation” is evident in all your blog entries.
And, in fact, atheism is a trend. It is “cool” to not believe in God; just ask any high-schooler or teenager who is going through his first stage of rebellion!
Or walk around Universities and see their “Atheist & Agnostic Clubs” or read your comments where, as soon as someone mentions the word God, they are put down and attacked immediately. It is a cool thing to not believe in God.
Also:
Actually, I have written frequently that theism and religion aren’t the same thing. Usually, it’s to explain to religious believers because they assume that atheism is a religion. So, in my experience, what you describe is common Christian mistake.
I never once claimed atheism to be a religion.
I was just stating that many atheists feel that religion & God are the same thing, and if you believe in God you’re automatically religious and religion is bad blah blah blah…
They think that the idea of God is bad because religion has no solid foundation. So what? You can believe in a higher power without believing in a religion! This is the point I am trying to make, and the fact that your blog simply attacks religion rather than educating about godlessness and atheism in general.
I never claimed atheism was a religion, and again, I am not Christian.
I didn’t. The fact that you buy into a common Christian misconception — and as demonstrated below, many popular Christian myths about atheism — doesn’t make you a Christian nor have I suggested that it does.
That’s a question already addressed here.
I’ve written about Hinduism and Buddhism several times. I’ve written about Islam and Judaism quite often. Did you ever do any searches to see what’s available?
The first part is another popular myth people have about atheists, and I’ve actually written about my personal experiences as a Christian. As to the last bit, I challenge you to support your claim that Christianity is being “insulted.”
That’s a cop-out. If you can’t point to anything specific that supports your accusation, then you simply can’t support your accusation and should consider that your reaction is due more to yourself than to anything I’ve written.
The idea that atheism is necessarily a form of rebellion is yet another set of popular myths about atheism.
Maybe the “trend” here is simply for atheists to being able and willing to admit to their atheism publicly.
Some atheists seem to think this, but I’ve seen it at least as often among theists.
And do you imagine that I’m not aware of this? In fact, my wife is a theist who rejects religion.
Yet, there is a massive amount of material here about atheism and godlessness. You can find it simply by clicking on the “Basics” and “Godlessness” tabs above. That’s two tabs out of three devoted to what you say isn’t here but just one devoted to what you say is all that’s here.
When I add to this the fact that I have written religions you’ve never seen addressed, and written quite a bit about religions you’ve rarely seen addressed, I am forced to just one conclusion: your opinions were formed without having looked very closely or carefully first. Maybe you should stop, take a couple of steps back, and look around a bit before forming any judgments about what is/is not/should be here?
Austin,
Actually, I have written frequently that theism and religion aren’t the same thing. Usually, it’s to explain to religious believers because they assume that atheism is a religion. So, in my experience, what you describe is common Christian mistake.
I am the one jumping to conclusions? I am the one not stopping, looking around and paying closer attention to what is said?
Never once, in my first comment on this post, did I mention anything about Christianity. While I may have said something that is similar to “what Christians think” according to how you believe Christians think, it was unnecessary to point that out. That is like someone discussing marijuana and you replying “That is a common misconception of Jamaican people.”
So what?
So our thoughts are similar, what was the reason behind pointing it out? Had to slip in another attempt to attack Christianity?
And while you did not directly call me a Christian, do not act like it was not implied!:
Another common Christian mistake is to spell atheism and/or atheism with a capital A, even though neither are proper nouns and therefore shouldn’t be capitalized in the middle of sentences.
And if it wasn’t implied, then again; another random attack that had NO PURPOSE and no use in reply to my comment?!
I skimmed the links you posted to answer what I have said, yet I am not swayed. There are radicals in all types of religion, and just because you are in the West and are surrounded with and experience mostly Christian radicalism, does not mean that radicalism of other religions doesn’t occur.
So therefore, my assumption of why you attack Christianity the very most is rather close: because you are faced with it the most. Because you experience the radicalism of that type of religion the very most.
Spend time in the Middle East or in Asia, and perhaps you will begin attacking all other religions in the same manner that you do Christianity.
Just because you don’t experience it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Also, how is it a cop-out?
I said you attack religions more than educate about atheism and it is true! Look at your most recent blog entries! I have handed you evidence and yet you refuse to acknowledge it just because I didn’t post a link to every one of your entries? Read the titles! Do you really need to burn yourself on the stove top before you realize it’s hot?!
I disagree because you were saying that the mistake in question is a common atheist mistake.
It wasn’t. I was simply letting you know that you were committing a mistake that is common with Christians. Given how many times you repeat popular Christian myths about atheists and atheism, it’s clear that I was correct to make you aware of the problem early on.
Swayed by what, exactly? Would it be the places where I pointed out your errors, pointed out where you’re simply repeating popular myths, or pointed out that it’s simply cop-out to wave your hands at “everything” and declare it all as support for your accusation
Did I say that radicalism in other religions doesn’t occur? No.
Did I say that it doesn’t exist? No. On the contrary, I’ve written about the radicalism in other religions.
So you’re objecting to a Straw Man.
Because you are refusing to cite specific evidence for your accusation. If I claimed that Christians are evil and, when challenged on this, waved my hand at “everything” and declared it all to be support for my statement, would anyone believe me? I hope not.
Yes, you said it, and you’ve been challenged to support it. This means it’s up to you to provide evidence that support the truth of your accusation.
And, just so you know, a couple of days of blog posts will hardly qualify.
Also, you’ll have to provide some substance to the concept of religion being “attacked.” For example, is it an “attack” on religion when I write about someone trying to undermine church/state separation? Is it an “attack” on religion when I write about anti-atheist bigotry?
I will take constructive, substantive criticism seriously. This means specific claims rather than vague accusations and specific citations rather than references to “everything.” Without all that, all I see is you having a strong emotional reaction to nothing specific you can point to based on nothing specific you can define. That’s more your problem than mine and it’s not a situation I can resolve for you.
To put it another way, when you can point to specific instances of specific problems, you’ll be pointing to something I’ve done and can do something about. If you can’t, you’re just expressing your own negative emotions and that’s not something I can do anything about.
Saying “all your blog entries” isn’t quite the same s “handing” me evidence.
Austin,
It seems that whenever someone disagrees or attempts to post a little religious knowledge that doesn’t fully sit well with what you are claiming, you manage to turn the comments into attacks and constantly tell these people they have “straw men” arguments. ‘Straw’ and ‘men’ must be your two favourite words.
You take every comment that is even a little bit negative and turn it into a big spectacle for all your fan(atic)s to see. You are such a big man! A little criticism doesn’t hurt, you know. They are just words. Just shrug it off. One is the bigger man if they can “turn the other cheek,” as the Christians say. Wise knowledge no matter what or lack of religious affiliation you have.
Do you know what a Straw Man argument is?
Vague, unsupported accusations don’t help, you know, but so far that’s all you’ve had to offer.
Kane: you’re very young aren’t you
re your “You are such a big man” comment at Austin. You may THINK you are in some sort of grand battle of wills with Austin. You’re not.
Kane, you should quit now if you have nothing better to offer than your own reactions.
“A big man” is someone who can admit when their arguments are unsubstantiated and attempt to find evidence to support.
It’s really easy to post a link, and that’s really all it would take.
Religion is a form of dismalness that relieves the general tedium. It is just a racket.
I wish that I never had to attend another ridiculous theist funeral, to listen to all their nonsense and make-believe. All that pretend about an afterlife should surely prevent theists from crying at funerals, if any of them actually believe what they are saying. Shouldn’t it?
Of course, if Mary Kenny has ever actually attended a humanist funeral (something I doubt), she’d find the catering is usually better (because the non-religious are more affluent), and the talk centres upon a celebration of life; indeed, the celebration of life aspect has been driven by the non-religious and the moderately religious who have demanded that funerals celebrate the deceased, rather than be used as a recruiting tool by a preacher.
And at all the funerals I have attended for theists, we haven’t yet started dancing on the tables, or having all the “fun” that Bigot Kenny claims can only come to those who worship some god invented by their primitive, ignorant ancestors.